72'v - home | iurdiurd.berkeley.edu › wp › 2010-02.pdf1. introduction tod, or...
Post on 05-Jul-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Working Paper 2010-02
Robert Cervero and Cathleen Sullivan
Summer 2010
Kid-Friendly TODs
0
Kid-Friendly TODs
Robert Cervero and Cathleen Sullivan University of California, Berkeley
IURD Working Paper
August 2010
1
Abstract
Transit-oriented developments, or TODs, are commonly thought to appeal to non-traditional
households. This paper reviews experiences with TODs, drawn mainly from Europe, that are
kid-friendly. What makes them attractive to families are extensive shared green spaces and
playgrounds in lieu of surface parking, no-traffic zones, and ample play spaces and cycling
paths. Mixed land uses, high-levels of nearby transit services, and defensible spaces also have
appeal. In some instances, higher rents reflect these benefits. Reducing on-site parking
requirements and introducing transfer mechanisms that help cover the higher costs of family-size
affordable units near rail stops can help promote kid-friendly TODs.
2
1. Introduction
TOD, or Transit-Oriented Development, has gained popularity as a sustainable form of
urbanism (Calthorpe, 1994; Cervero, 2008; Renne, 2009). It typically features mixed land uses
configured around light or heavy rail stations, interlaced by high-quality pedestrian amenities.
As such, TOD is one of the more promising tools for breaking the vicious cycle of sprawl and
car dependence feeding off each other, replacing it with a virtuous cycle: one where increased
transit usage decreases traffic snarls and compact station-area development helps curb sprawl.
A common perception is that TOD appeals to a distinctive niche market – mainly non-
traditional households, like childless couples, Generation X’ers, Millenials, and empty-nesters.
Such cohorts value convenience and access to high-quality transit and – influenced by media
images of Seinfeld, Friends, and Sex in the City -- place a premium on being in a walkable
community with outdoor cafes, boutique retail, and urban amenities. The Center for TOD (2008)
projects that 79% of U.S. households living in TOD by 2025 will be childless. Saying that TODs
appeal to non-traditional households is tantamount to saying they are “kid-unfriendly.” After all,
conventional wisdom holds that kids (and typically their parents as well) prefer the leafy
suburbs, even if it means being isolated and relegates many parents to the role of chauffeur.
Need this always be the case?
This paper argues that TOD can be kid-friendly and illustrates some examples that are.
First, we present principles of kid-friendly TOD, defining ways in which it is well-suited to the
lifestyles of families with kids. This is tied to the larger notion of planning cities with the needs
of children in mind. We then turn to several international examples of kid-friendly TOD, drawn
mainly from Europe. We conclude with some ideas on how America might go about kick-
starting green and kid-friendly TOD.
3
2. Planning Places for Kids
The “gotta have a car to raise a kid” mindset is pervasive in middle-class America.
Well-designed TODs that de-emphasize car usage and parking, however, can be perfectly suited
for kids because many things are within a safer and walkable distance. Notably, removing the
dominance of private cars from the residential landscape lowers accident rates, noise levels, and
air pollution – i.e., it creates healthier and much more enjoyable environments for kids to play.
Surface parking, which can consume half the land of many suburban multi-family dwelling
complexes (Daisa, 2004), is replaced by more green space for play, less dangerous streets, and
cleaner air (Figure 1). Shrinking parking’s footprint reduces heat-island effects and water
pollution from oil-stained run-off into streams. Less impervious surfaces of concrete and asphalt
helps recharge groundwater and replenish urban aquifers, thereby allowing greener and healthier
gardens. Thus with kid-friendly TODs, the interiors of projects are comprised of lush and green
communal gardens, playgrounds, tot-lots, and play-inviting open space. Having safe and secure
interiors for kids to play becomes a form of defensible space (Newman, 1996), allowing the kind
of natural surveillance embraced in the writings of Jane Jacobs (1961) and others.
4
Figure 1. Kid-Friendly TOD in Rieselfeld, Germany: Gardens and play areas replace surface
parking.
In the TODs reviewed in this paper, cars are de-prioritized and children are clearly
prioritized. Families are attracted to the extensive shared green spaces, low- or no-traffic areas,
and ample play space and cycling paths. Rather than catering to single households, the young, or
old, these projects are specifically designed for and marketed to families. Experiences show that
thoughtfully and inclusively designed TODs are kid-friendly in three core ways: (1) they
emphasize pedestrian infrastructure, including sidewalks, internal pathways, and crosswalks (and
at the same time often de-emphasize the car); (2) mixed land uses not only bring destinations
closer together but also create active, vibrant street life and interior spaces, instilling safety and
security through more “eyes on the street”; and (3) high-levels of transit service provide kids
with (and make them less dependent on their parents for) access to the offerings of a city, be they
museums, sports venues, or retail attractions. Researchers at the Center for Cities and Schools
(CCS) at UC Berkeley note that TOD can have even broader appeal to kids and families: parents
5
can efficiently drop off and pick preschoolers at childcare centers that are on- or near-site of a
TOD when train-commuting; for teenagers, transit not only provides access to and from middle-
and high schools, but also to afterschool enrichment activities, job sites, and special events
(Bierbaum et al., 2010).
Kid-friendly TODs are part of a larger effort to create child-friendly cities. This view
holds:
Too often, the built environment works against healthy child development in terms of
the design and position of housing, parkland, and transport systems. We need to put
children at the center of the planning process if we want to make an impact in reducing
problems such as behavioral issues, rising rates of juvenile crime, domestic violence, and
even the obesity epidemic”. (Lunn, 2006)
Critics might write off such claims as physical determinism at the extreme. However there can
be little dispute that childhood obesity is tied to designing cities in ways that have engineered
walking and cycling out of day-to-day life. In 1969, nearly 90% of U.S. children living within a
mile of school walked or biked to school; by 2001, this figure had dropped to 63% and the
estimated share today is less than 50% (Center for Disease Control, 2005). Putting schools on or
near a TOD site can obviously promote safe routes to school. Research shows that distances
between home and school, traffic concerns, and “stranger danger” are major barriers to kids
walking and cycling to school (McDonald, 2007).
Kid-friendly TOD is by far more the exception than the rule in the U.S. today. Families
interested in urban rather than suburban living have difficulty finding units spacious enough and
with adequate amenities to accommodate young children (Lewis, 2010). It is faulty to believe
that a lack of families living in urban area translates to a lack of demand for such lifestyles. Part
6
of the reason is a lack of supply. Notes Lewis (2010): “Unsubsidized apartments built today are
almost exclusively designed for and marketed to people without school-age children”. In-city
TODs taking form today, at least in the United States, are simply not being built with the needs
of families in mind.
Several groups have actively sought to raise our collective consciousness about the
importance of child-friendly city and transportation planning. Most notable have been the efforts
(perhaps not surprisingly) of urban planners in the bike-friendliest countries of the world – the
Netherlands (Dutch Institute for Design, Netherlands Ministry of Transport) and Sweden
(Stockholm Institute of Education). Among the more notable publications of child-mindful
planning are Barnperpektiv pa planerginen (“Child’s perspective on planning”) by Swedish
architect Nic Nilsson and Child-Friendly Transport Planning released by the Centre for
Sustainable Transportation in Ontario, Canada. For the past decade, the Community-Based
Education Resource (CUBE) has actively championed child-oriented community designs,
ascribing to the “Bill of Rights for Kids” created by Aspen architect Harry Teague. The Bill
holds cities that shall be:
• Safe
• At an appropriate scale – no walls over 4 feet in height
• Accessible – youth have the ability to get from one place to another
• Integrated – nature, the community, work, ages, sees, all part of the whole
• A manifestation of tradition – youth will be able to identify cultural anchors, be they
building types and styles, monuments, landmarks, or natural areas.
7
Kid-friendly design principles also take expression in the writings and theories of such post-
modern movements as New Urbanism, Complete Streets, and Active Living by Design.
The case studies that follow aim to move our thinking about kid-friendly TODs from
theory to practice. What all have in common are high-quality public transit, notably a rail line
and accessible stations that serve the immediate community. The communities, however, are
more than buildings physically oriented to stations. All embrace principles of green urbanism in
their design and architecture (Beatley, 2000). All emphasize pedestrian and cycling
infrastructure and all promote efficient usage and recycling of natural resources, including
renewable energy, low-impact building designs, and reduced waste. While people of all ages
and backgrounds benefit from such practices, children, in particular, prosper in clean, safe, and
healthy living environments.
3. Kid-Friendly TODs: Global Experiences
The cases reviewed in this section are presented in roughly chronological order, starting
with some of the first kid-friendly TODs built in Europe. Since details on all cases can easily be
found on the Internet, the focus here is on isolating elements of these projects that are kid-
friendly. Where possible, statistics are presented on projects’ demographics (focusing on the
share of households with kids and without cars) and travel characteristics of residents.
Completed on the site of Amsterdam’s former municipal waste water utility, 3 kms from
the city center, GWL-Terrein features 625 dwellings of mostly high-density housing on 14 acres
GWL-Terrein (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
8
of land. The project has a car-free interior and is well connected by tramway, train, and bus.
Parking is assigned to the project’s periphery, as are several car-share depots.1
1 When residents sign a lease or deed, they also sign a non-obligatory declaration of support for the car-free nature of housing. Residency in GWL-Terrein, however, does not preclude car-free living. Lotteries are used to distribute 110 residential and 25 visitor parking spaces on the project’s edge. As of 2001, 110 households were thought to have sold cars because of the unavailability of parking (Scheurer, 2001).
Linked public
spaces and communal gardens lace the project. Bicycle storage is readily available as well
(Figure 2).
As a car-restricted project in a very liberal city known for its cannabis shops and red-light
districts, one might assume that GWL-Terrein caters to counter-culturalists and bohemians of all
stripes and persuasions. To the contrary, GWL-Terrein appeals to families with children mostly
because of its plentiful green spaces (in short supply in a city like Amsterdam) and ease of transit
access to the city’s many cultural offerings. As a traffic-calmed project, safe play areas are also
valued by parents. A survey from 2001 showed that 42% of households had children under 18
years of age, higher than the share of those living in the surrounding Westerpark neighborhood
and well above the average of 24% for the city of Amsterdam as a whole (Scheurer, 2001). The
survey also found that a third of residents were drawn to the project because it is car-free and
emphasizes green urbanism and healthy living. Additionally, just one out of five households in
GWL-Terrein owned a car the first few years following the project’s opening. The survey also
found that 73% of trips made by residents were by walking or cycling, 17% by public transit, and
just 10% by car. Four out of 10 residents had a monthly transit pass. Vehicle kilometers
traveled (VKT) per capita – the strongest correlate to sustainability in the urban transport sector
– was 25% less than the average for residents of Amsterdam as a whole (Scheurer, 2001).
Through casual conversations with parents while visiting GWL-Terrein, most said they
9
were happy to let their kids roam freely through the project, comforted by its insular, secure-
feeling design, commons areas, and well-defined edges, including a canal to the south. Because
of green spaces, the absence of cars, and well-lit, clearly defined pathways throughout the
project, children can play safely and within eyeshot of a grownup. Local shops and a restaurant
provide on-site destinations for kids to pick up a snack and a commons area for social activities.
Most notably missing from the project is a neighborhood school or childcare center, though both
can be found nearby.
Figure 2. GWL-Terrein, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Interior green spaces.
Houten, a city of some 40,000 inhabitants on an inter-city train line between Utrecht and
Amsterdam, was explicitly designed for non-motorized movements. What makes it kid-friendly
is the fact that the only convenient way to reach the rail-served town center is by foot or bicycle.
Houten was master-planned and designed in the shape of a butterfly, absent any through roads
that enable motorist to go from one side of the city to the other via the core (Figure 3). Instead,
cross-town drivers must follow a circuitous ring road to go from one corner of the community to
the other. Among Houten’s distinctive features are continuous and protected bicycle paths,
Houten, The Netherlands
10
direct walk- and bike-way connections to the railway station, extensive bike parking and lockers
at the station itself, numerous soccer and basketball fields, green spaces, and water zones. As a
result, 48% of trips are by bicycle and private-car travel is 25% below the national average for
similar income communities (Beatley, 2000). A majority of access trips the rail station beyond a
kilometer in distance are by bike-and-ride (Martens, 2007). With an annual traffic accident rate
of 1.1 incidences per inhabitant (versus a national rate of 3.5), Houten is also one of the safest
cities in the Netherlands (Beatley, 2000; Pucher and Buehler, 2008).
Figure 3. Houten, The Netherlands. Car-restricted interior invites cycling and walking.
Source (left image): The Houten Council, Cycle town Houten, 2000.
The Rieselfeld district – 9100 residents living on 90 hectares – in one of Germany’s
greenest cities, Frieburg, was specifically designed for and marketed to families. The project’s
ample open space, children’s play areas, traffic calming, and good transit access have attracted
large numbers of families. So have kid facilities (the “Glashaus” with a media center for kids; 3
day care centers; 2 kindergartens; a primary school; a second school with a gym), recreation
centers, common playgrounds in inner courtyards, and bike priority lanes. One third of
Rieselfeld and Vauban Districts: Freiburg, Germany
11
Rieselfeld’s population is under 18 years of age and almost half of households have children
(Siegl, 2010). The district’s market literature touts its pro-family aims: “The Rieselfeld project
succeeds in keeping families within the city” (Rieselfeld Project Group, 2007).
Rieselfeld can be described as “transit-led development” (TLD). The tramway opened in
1997, a year after the first families had moved in and when there were just 1,000 inhabitants.
The presence of 3 tramway stations enabled urban growth to wrap itself around rail nodes. With
7-minute peak headways, residents can reach the city center in 10 minutes. Extensive bikeways
and ped-ways -- along with carsharing, narrow shared “play” streets that slow traffic, a grid
layout, and preferential treatments for trams, buses, pedestrians, and bicycles at intersections --
have further reduced the reliance Rieselfeld’s residents on private cars (Figure 4). And parks,
playground, green medians, and borders rimmed by nature reserves and hiking trails promote
active living. Green mobility is reflected by modal split statistics: 16% of resident trips are by
walking, 28% by bike, and 25% by public transit (Rieselfeld Projekt Group, 2007). Also, 90%
of Reiselfeld residents buy monthly transit passes.
Figure 3. Rieselfeld District, Freiburg, Germany. Green spaces, kid zones, traffic calmed
streets. Tram line runs through the tree-lined center of the village (left photo).
12
Southwest of Freiburg on 40 hectares of land, with 5,000 residents, is what has been
called one of the greenest places in the world, Vauban. In addition to its ecological design (low-
energy buildings, co-generation heating and power plants, extensive solar collectors), Vauban is
widely known for its car-restricted living (in contrast to Rieselfeld which averages 1.1 parking
spaces per dwelling unit). Seventy percent of households have no car and 57% sold their cars
upon moving to Vauban.2
2The car ownership rate is just 150 per 1000 inhabitants compared to 430 per 1000 inhabitants for the city of Freiburg as a whole (Sustainability Office, City of Freiburg, 2009).
Most of Vauban’s streets ban cars and most housing has no driveways
or garages (Nobis and Welsch, 2003). Vauban’s inhabitants exercise “judicious automobility,”
choosing to use a car only when needed – in 2003, 39% of households had joined a carsharing
co-op. Of course, the flip-side of auto-restricted living has been high transit, walk, and bike
modal shares. With the district organized around a tramway spine with three stops, Vauban is a
prototypical Green TOD. Seven-minute peak headways draw many residents to the trams that
nestle nicely into the streetscape.
Separate accounts highlight the kid-friendliness of these two projects. The city’s
marketing literature holds that Vauban and Rieselfeld are “Freiburg’s youngest districts”
(FWTM, 2009, p. 41). In reviewing Vauban’s architectural and design qualities, Cerfontaine
(2007, p. 32) concluded: “a child-friendly, attractive urban neighborhood for young children has
been fully achieved” (Figure 5). Adds Steven Melia (2007, p. 6) in his comparative study of
Vauban: “The carfree streets were full of young children, often unsupervised, playing or cycling
– noticeably more so than in the Spielstrasse (homezones) with parking which are common
elsewhere in Freiburg”. Broaddus (2010, p. 3) has weighed in as well, concluding that Rieselfeld
and Vauban constitute a “re-invention of the suburb as a high density, mixed-use place where
cars are hardly used and children and low-consumption lifestyles can flourish”.
13
Figure 5. The Kid-Friendly Vauban District, Freiburg, Germany.
The transit-friendly community of Kronsberg, in Hannover, is a young district with a
high portion of families. Almost one third of residents are less than 18 years old and the average
age is 31 years, much lower than Hannover City as a whole (where the average age is 42). It is
clear upon walking through Kronsberg why the community is so popular among families with
children. High-quality urban environs and open space were a high priority in the design of
Kronsberg. Placement of parking underground and limiting the private parking ratio to 0.8
spaces per unit freed up space and funding for ample, lush inner courtyards. Space was carved
out for play areas and green zones throughout the development and Kronsberg’s adjacency to a
large open space provides a clean, healthy environment for raising children (Figure 5). While
the scale is perhaps larger than ideal and parks and plazas can feel oversized, Kronberg’s aim of
creating a kid-friendly environment served by high-quality transit has largely been accomplished.
Kronsberg: Hannover, Germany
14
Figure 5. Kronsberg, Germany. Interior play areas dot this child-centric TOD
Widely applauded for its eco-city designs (largely energy self-sufficient and low levels of
household waste due to aggressive recycling), the brownfield redevelopment site of Hammarby
Sjöstad in Stockholm is also attractive to families with kids. The opening of an inner-city
tramway line (Tvärbanan) that serves the development along with calmed traffic and ample car-
free green space has made Hammarby Sjöstad a very popular place to live – so much so that it
commands higher rents and averages a higher income than many other growing areas in and
around central Stockholm.
Hammarby Sjöstad: Stockholm, Sweden
Design features that are integral to TOD, like buildings that go up to sidewalk line (i.e.,
no set-backs), are kid-friendly because they offer comfortable, cozy, and secure walking
corridors with clear sight-lines at a human scale. Buildings that hug the sidewalk also end up
calming traffic. One mother of Hammarby Sjöstad who we met while touring the project noted
that a school built to the sidewalk line allowed the amount of rear-lot play space to be increased
while also providing a buffer from traffic.
15
Interestingly, Hammarby Sjöstad was originally planned for empty nesters moving back
to the center city from larger suburban homes. However, only 5% of the population is older than
65 (Grontmij, 2008). Instead, 22% of residents are families with children 19 years of age of
younger, higher than for Stockholm as a whole (Table 1). As shown in the table, there is a
particularly large portion of children ages 0-5 years.
Table 1. Age Distribution Comparison: Hammarby Sjöstad and City of Stockholm
Age Hammarby
Sjöstad
Stockholm
0-5 years 13% 5%
6-15 years 6% 8%
16-19 years 3% 4%
Source: Grontmij, 2008.
What is especially attractive to households with very young kids is the car-free interior of
Hammarby Sjöstad (Figure 6). When touring the project, one mother we talked with voluntarily
traced her walking route to day care on a map, excited about only having to cross one street with
cars. Transit is also an attraction; the tramway spine/boulevard served as an organizing feature
of the development from the start. The tram runs every 7 minutes in the peak and it takes only 5
minutes to connect to Tunnelbana subway trains or inter-city commuter trains. Bike lanes and
bridges, ample bike parking, and 3 carsharing schemes, combined with a congestion pricing zone
that lies between the project and central Stockholm, have drawn many residents out of their cars.
In 2002, the project’s modal splits were: public transport (52%), walking/cycling (27%), and
private car (21%) (Grontmij, 2008). Non-car travel shares are thought to be considerably higher
16
today and even in 2002 well exceeded that of comparison suburban neighborhoods of Stockholm
with similar incomes (Table 2). Also, 62% of Hammarby Sjöstad’s households had a car in
2007, down from 66% in 2005 and in line with averages for the denser, core part of Stockholm
city (Grontmij, 2008). Studies show the carbon footprint of residents is also lower than a
comparison community: 438 versus 913 kg CO2 equivalent/apartment/year (Grontmij, 2008).
This is in keeping with the city of Stockholm’s goal to become fossil-fuel free by 2050.
High-quality transit, pedestrian, and cycling infrastructure have played pivotal roles in
shrinking the environmental footprint of Hammarby Sjöstad. However, the “greenness” of
developments like Hammarby Sjöstad, not just the availability of rail-services or TOD design
qualities, is every bit as important to their family friendliness. In combination, green mobility
options and green urbanism have proven been a powerful lure in attracting environmentally
conscientious households to Hammarby Sjöstad.
Figure 6. Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm Sweden. Kid-accessible transit and playgrounds.
17
Table 1. Mode Splits for Journeys with destination in Stockholm County*
Transport
Type
Inner City Southern Suburbs Western Suburbs Hammarby
Sjöstad
Car 17% 39% 43% 21%
Public
Transport
36% 28% 23% 52%
Bike/Walk 47% 32% 34% 27%
Source: Grontmij (2008).
While European cities can lay claim to having advanced the art and science of building
kid-friendly TODs more than anywhere else, Sydney’s Kogarah Town Square has made pretty
good headway. Newman et al. (2009, pp. 120-121) cite it as a sustainable, rail-served, and
thriving “mixed-use development consisting of 194 residents, 50,000 square feet of office and
retail space, and 35,000 square feet of community space, including a library and town square.”
The authors coined the term POD/TOD/GOD to describe Kogarah Town Square – a
development oriented to Pedestrians, Transit, and Green Urbanism. Liberal use of photovoltaic
collectors, building orientations that maximize thermal in-take, and close proximity to a train
station, have shrunk the carbon footprint of Kogarah Town Square relative to similar districts in
Sydney. As with European Green TODs, ample open space wrapped around an attractive and
well-lit town center has contributed to the project’s kid-friendliness (Figure 7). Koragrah’s
central location, assortment of land uses, and stock of well-preserved heritage buildings also
Kogarah Town Square: Sydney, Australia
18
appeal to young professionals and empty-nesters, making for a culturally rich and
demographically diverse community.
Figure 7. Kogarah Town Square: Sydney, Australia. Traditional architecture, central rail
stations, and open civic squares add to the project’s kid-friendliness.
4. Close
Contrary to popular opinion, TODs can be kid-friendly. European experiences
underscore this. By taming private cars, giving preference to non-motorized mobility, shrinking
surface parking lots to open up space for playgrounds, gardens, and communal spaces, providing
superb access to the surrounding city, and greening the landscape, TODs can be superb
environments for raising kids. This holds for central city settings (e.g., GWL-Terrein and
Hammerby Sjöstad) as well as outlying suburbs (e.g., Rieselfeld, Houten, Kronsberg).
The cases reviewed in this paper are clearly more the exception than the rule. It would be
a stretch to label any TOD in the United States today as “kid-friendly.” The Fruitvale Transit
Village in Oakland, California features a Chartered High School and day-care center near the
BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station, however parking is plentiful and there are no significant
public playgrounds or green spaces to speak of. America’s dearth of kid-friendly TODs is
19
unquestionably tied to its car dependence and auto-oriented designs, at least in contrast to the
European examples reviewed in this paper. Planning and zoning practices bear part of the
blame One culprit is the excessive amount of parking provided. Recent research shows most
American TOD is grossly “over-parked,” providing more spaces than needed since so many
TOD residents shed cars and rail-commute (Cervero et al., 2010). Embracing child-friendly city
and transportation planning practices would also help. This is no more than honoring the
principle of inclusive planning, bringing the views, ideas, and aspirations of kids to the table of
every charrette and neighborhood meeting held on TOD (or for that matter, any kind of proposed
neighborhood land-use change).
Moving beyond the rhetoric to the reality of kid-friendly TODs will take money, time,
and political leadership. The built-in structural forces that work against designing safe, secure,
and pedestrian-friendly settings around America’s rail transit stations are immense, and most
likely can only be pared down through small victories, perhaps a little bit of luck, and some
good, inspiring real-world examples. Economic barriers need to be overcome. Lewis (2010)
observes: “Given the value of urban -- or urbanizing -- land and the cost of construction, making
family-size units affordable would require financial incentives. Counties would have to subsidize
development by directly or indirectly reducing the per-unit cost of land, and by providing tax
breaks for developers and occupants”. Transfer mechanisms – like impact-fee offsets or tax
abatements – that reward more family-oriented and sustainable development are but one way to
leverage kid-friendly TODs. To the extent they shrink a city’s carbon footprint, cap-and-trade
programs could be another way of underwriting the cost of more expensive development and
redevelopment.
Putting up the funds to pilot-demonstrate the potential benefits and virtues of kid-friendly
20
TODs would be a huge step forward. This might happen at the local level, as in the case of some
“Transportation for Livable Communities” (TLC) demonstration projects funded by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the regional planning authority for the San
Francisco Bay Area. MTC has awarded numerous grants to rail-served municipalities in the Bay
Area that have gone to build safe and attractive pedestrian connections to transit stops. More
significant could be specific language in any federal transportation reauthorization bill that
explicitly sets aside money for such purposes. The inclusion of Safe-Routes-to-School programs
in past national transportation bills, along with the recent sustainable communities partnership
between the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), suggest a receptivity to
such programs at the federal level. It will take the collective voice of environmentalists, child-
advocacy groups, sustainability-minded planners, pro-transit interests, PTAs, and the like to
marshal the resources necessary to move make kid-friendly TODs a reality in 21st century
America.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by funding from the Berkeley Center for Future Urban
Transportation, a Volvo Research Center of Excellence.
21
R efer ences
Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Bierbuam, Ariel, Jeffrey Vincent, and Deborah McKoy. 2010. Putting Schools on the Map: Linking Transit-Oriented Development, Families, and Schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. Berkeley: Center for Cities and Schools. Broaddus, Andrea. 2010. A Tale of Two Eco-Suburbs in Freiburg, Germany: Parking Provisions and Car Use. Transportation Research Record (forthcoming).
Calthorpe, Peter. 1994. The Next American Metropolis: E cology, Community and the American Dream. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press. Center for Disease Control. 2005. Kids Walk-to-School: Resource Materials. Atlanta: CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/kidswalk/ Center for TOD, TOD 101. 2008. Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Administration. Centre for Sustainable Transportation. 2004. Child-Friendly Transport Planning. Mississauga, Ontario: CST. Cerfontaine, Caroline. 2007. The Vauban district in Freiburg in Brisgau: living in a holiday destination. PTI September/October, pp. 30-33.
Cervero, Robert. 2008. Transit-Oriented Development in America: Strategies, Issues, Policy Directions. New Urbanism and Beyond: Designing Cities for the Future, T. Haas, ed. New York: Rizzoli, pp. 124-129. Cervero, Robert, Arlie Adkins, and Cathleen Sullivan. 2010. Are Suburban TODs Over-parked? Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2010, pp. 47-70. Daisa, John. 2004. Traffic, Parking, and Transit Oriented Development. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development, H. Dittmar and G. Ohland, eds. Wasington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 114-129. FWTM (Management and Marketing), City of Freiburg. Quartier Vauban: A Guided Tour. Grontmij, AB. 2008. Report summary -Follow up of environmental impact in Hammarby Sjöstad. Stockholm. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
22
Lewis, R. K. 2010. Family-size apartments in urban areas could help smart-growth communities. The Washington Post online, Saturday, August 28, 2010. Accessed September 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082607208.html
Lunn, S. 2006. Modern Urban Planning is No Child’s Play. The Australian. October 31, 2006. Marstens, K. 2004. The bicycle as a feedering mode: experiences from three European Countries. Transportation Research D, Vol. 9, pp. 281-294. McDonald, Noreen. 2007. Active Transportation to School Trends Among U.S. Schoolchildren: 1969-2001. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 509-516. Melia, Steve. 2007. On the Road to Sustainability: Transportation and Carfree Living in Freiburg. Faculty of the Built Environment, UWE Bristol. Newman, Oscar. 1996. Creating Defensible Space. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research. Newman, Peter, Timothy Beatley, and Heather Boyer. 2009. Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Nilsson, Nic. 2003. Barnsperspektiv på planergen. Karlstad, Sweden: IPA-Barns Rätt Till Lek. Nobis, Claudia and Janina Welsch. 2003. Mobility management at district level: The impact of car-reduced districts on mobility behavior. 7th European Conference on Mobility Management, Karlstad, Sweden, May. Pucher, John and Buehler, Ralph. 2009. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, Vol. 28, NO. 4, PP. 495-528.
Renne, J. 2009. From transit-adjacent to transit-oriented development. Local Enviornment, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-15. Rieselfeld Projekt Group. 2007. The new district of Rieselfeld. City of Feiburg in Breisgau. Scheurer, Jarr. 2001. Urban Ecology, Innovations in Housing Policy and the Future of Cities: Towards Sustainability in Neighbourhood Communities. Freemantle, Australia: Murdoch University, Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy. Siegl, Klaus. 2010. The new district of Freiburg-Rieselfeld: a case study of successful, sustainable urban development. Freiburg in Breisgau.
top related